That was an excellent one.

Absolutely Fantastic

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

28 Weeks Later packs almost the same rage-infected punch of the original. While the camera work is a bit sloppy and the storyline is fairly predictable at times, there are some genuine moments of shock and terror in this movie.

Less original than the previous film, this is a more typical zombie film, of a besieged area trying to withstand the hordes. It is well enough told, and filmed, but nothing outstanding.

Sequels do have an annoying tendency to take up the ideas from the original film and reheat them for a (presumably) new and younger audience. What makes 28 WEEKS LATER almost as good as the first film (28 DAYS LATER) is that it does not do this. It does take us over the same ground as the first film, only as the title says, six months later. And the viewer sees the passage of time in the changes from the original. The Americans have settled down in Britain and are apparently doing their best to wipe out the plague. The question is: will they succeed?It wouldn't be fair to reveal much more, but I can say that this sequel is way over-the-top in violence compared to the first film; I found this slightly irritating. As if they were simply trying to fill out the story. But that's just my take on it. It is still a terrifying film, violent and bloody (not for weak stomachs), and with the same jerky camera work as the first film, which keeps the audience off balance in addition to scaring the living daylights out of them.I really do wish there were more horror films like this one, willing to think outside the box.

Ah man, I remember when 28 Days Later came out...I wasn't old enough to see it, but I saw some clips of the opening sequence and I loved the abandoned London feel.Needless to say, when I saw it it was...and still is...an incredibly good film. So I came to check out 28 weeks later.Basically the 'rage' virus has apparently died out and so people start to live in London again, which seems to have been taken over by the Americans.Two kids are reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle) and all is happy in the rebuilt world for a day or so.The kids proceed to sneak out and go to their old house, and in the panic that ensues, the zombie plague rises again. But there's something special about these two kids...and everyone around them is very keen to keep them alive.First of all I loved the scenery in this - the landscape shots are brilliant, and it has this dark - quintessentially British - feel to it, the kind of channel 4 movie feel. Which works well and ramps up the creeping feel of dread at times.It also has a lot of frantic shots - e.g scenes in very claustrophobic areas that are cut very quickly to build tension. A lot of the time this works, but as a viewer I like to know what's going on and this style of film-making took that away from me at times.Was good to see Imogen Pootz in this, her career has since gone up and up - Carlyle is good value too, although doesn't get much screen time.The opening quarter of the film is good, but sadly it fell apart from there - I didn't feel that involved in the two main children characters, and wasn't really rooting for them and I found the ending really disappointing. As I saw the final few shots I had to roll my eyes.Call me cynical but if you liked the first one, don't bother. The zombies are the same - and yes, they are scary - violent, mindless fountains of speed and rage that you feel hopeless against - but other than that you're better off visiting the original again or going to see some classic Romero flicks.